Poll: Obamacare Hurts Obama

In a presidential election it is all about the swing states, and, if you are an incumbent, a record of accomplishment to run on.

Unfortunately for Obama, swing states don’t view his one big policy “accomplishment” favorably

The health care overhaul that President Obama intended to be the signature achievement of his first term instead has become a significant problem in his bid for a second one, uniting Republicans in opposition and eroding his standing among independents.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of the nation’s dozen top battleground states, a clear majority of registered voters call the bill’s passage “a bad thing” and support its repeal if a Republican wins the White House in November. Two years after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— and as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about its constitutionality next month — the president has failed to convince most Americans that it was the right thing to do.

So, what does he run on? A failed stimulus? High unemployment? High gas prices? Seriously, this guy promised to fix the economy in three years, and he has made it worse. He can’t even run on ObamaCare. How does he run at all when he has to run from his own record?

About these ads

191 thoughts on “Poll: Obamacare Hurts Obama

  1. dennis

    I’ve never said anything to suggest abortion is morally right, least of all partial birth abortion.

    My point is that if one is genuinely pro-life, it entails much more than demonizing your political opponents. It means you recognize the sancitity of human life and defend it in every context. Most “pro-lifers” here are right-wing anti-Democrats, they don’t defend the sanctity of human life from any consistent moral ground. They are moral relativists.

    Cluster, the United States went to war with Iraq, not the other way around.

    And I continue to posit that anyone who would seek to give legal person status to every fertilized egg can hardly be considered a small-government conservative.

    1. Count d'Haricots

      So, you’re saying abortion is wrong?

      Frankly, other than your strawmen, I don’t know what the hell you’re saying.

      1. dennis

        Count, I’ve always said abortion is wrong – I said so in print back in the early 80s, before the Internet as we know it existed.

        What I’ve been saying ever since I first came here is that the moral outrage on this blog against the left is fabricated: it’s pure politics, not actual morality in any sense that can be defended from the teachings of Christ or even the vaunted “Judeo-Christian” tradition that gets honked about at regular intervals here.

      2. Count d'Haricots

        *sigh*

        dennis, If you feel abortion is wrong, and we feel abortion is wrong, how are we hypocrites for arguing abortion is wrong and you’re not a hypocrite for arguing with us over arguing with you?

        Aren’t you simply taking a contrarian view because you want to disagree with us simply because we’re conservative and you’re not?

      3. Cluster

        Dennis,

        The idealistically simple world you live in must bring you much comfort, but unfortunately real life is neither ideal nor simple and is often messy and complex. Only a juvenile would respond by saying that “we went to war with Iraq” as it just completely glosses over the complex history that led to that event. And you have yet to address the “fully aware” question, which doesn’t surprise me, and where did you come up with this cartoonish notion that pro lifers support ALL life? That is just a false premise and I will leave that for you to figure that one out. I don’t hold out too much hope.

    2. neocon1

      dennistooge

      Cluster, the United States went to war with Iraq, not the other way around.

      BS
      iraq INVADED her soverign neighbor, the UN including the US went to war with iraq and ousted them from from this invasion.
      A cease fire armistice was signed which iraq unilaterally violated until the UD coalition said enough was enough and went in to inact a regine change.

      DO try to keep up stooge.

    3. Amazona

      …I continue to posit that anyone who would seek to give legal person status to every fertilized egg can hardly be considered a small-government conservative.

      What an odd non sequitur.

  2. bagni

    matt neo
    oh daddio
    you need to step away from the keyboard
    take a couple o’ deep breaths
    pick up the phone
    and set an appt with you local fla. shrink
    yknow if you sat down and talked a bit with a professional???
    might do you some good

    love and kisses
    your friend
    bagni

    1. neocon1

      na nu na nu dork

      you need to step away from the keyboard
      take a couple o’ deep breaths
      pick up the phone
      and set an appt with you local fla. shrink

      I went to the local bar instead….MUCH better.

      1. Amazona

        You have to admit, someone who claims to be from another planet and tries so hard to project a pweshuss infantile persona has some credibility when it comes to realizing the need for psychiatric intervention.

        I wouldn’t go to his shrink, though—the guy is obviously incompetent.

        I think being baggi-centric has the little guy defining mental health by his own bizarre standards, so I suggest that not qualifying for sanity by those standards is all the proof you need that you are just fine.

    2. Amazona

      neo, when did baggi start slobbering all over you?

      You’ve got baggy baggi trying to stick his tongue down your throat and I’ve got baggy Velma begging me to bite her—-who let the pervs in?

    1. Amazona

      This flake also “…also alleged that a friend of hers died because of a lack of access to contraception ..”

      Hmmmm You gotta wonder how THAT happened.

      Because the claim is that “.. lack of access to contraception …” was the cause of death. Gee, that makes it sound like anyone not using contraception is just rolling the dice, doesn’t it? Playing Russian Roulette with their very lives!!

      But, skeptic that I am, I tend to wonder if this poor girl had actually engaged in some kind of risky behavior, as a choice, that was somehow related to her demise.

      Do ya think?

      Was she just studying in her dorm room, only to be struck down by the random danger of no access to contraception? Or—just throwing out some possibilities here—did she decide to engage in sexual activity without contraception? And just how did this DECISION on her part lead to her death?

      And here is another question: no access? She was blocked from getting contraception on her own? It was simply not available to her? No Walgreen’s? No Wal-Mart pharmacy? No Planned Parenthood? Who the hell blocked this woman’s ACCESS to what she needed to SAVE HER LIFE !! ????

      This line of curiosity leads to other questions. Did she pay for cell phone service, for example? Would that monthly expense, if applied to purchasing contraception, have saved her life? Did she have an iPad? Get manicures? Hit the coffee shop a few times a week? Did she appeal to her loving parents to subsidize her inherent right to sexual gratification?

      Did she get this sexual gratification with a male? Why didn’t HE chip in for protection?

      Sorry—it’s just become a habit to deconstruct Liberal victimhood. And, funniest thing, it almost always comes down to bad decisions.

  3. dennis

    Cluster, here’s what I said: “If it’s legal to do that [make refugees out of 4 million Iraqis and blow up innocent families with missiles from unmanned aerial drones], then abortion ought to be left unmentioned, purely out of hang-dog shame for all the murder of already-born and fully-aware humans our government does, with full support of right-wing conservatives.”

    Here is your response: “…your ‘fully aware” reference. Is that how you make that distinction? If that’s the case dennis, why don’t you advocate the slaughter of all of those brain damaged patients in comas? Or how about the mildly retarded? Many of them are not fully aware either, so where do you draw the line dennis?” And then you petulantly keep insisting that I answer.

    These questions are purely rhetorical and histrionic. I never said anything to suggest killing anybody is okay. Or that I feel “glee” at abortion rights, as you said elsewhere above. These are fabrications and projections that originate in your own thinking. This is your way, Cluster – you make inferences from things people say that aren’t justified by logic or any prior thing they’ve said. You create a cartoon you can mock or knock down – this is called a “straw man” argument, and it’s a tactic you rely on constantly.

    There is a sense in which the blowing up of civilians in war is more horrific than abortion, in that the victims are often overwhelmingly terrorized beforehand, and devastated by the realization that everything dear to them is being destroyed. In no way does this make the killing of a person in his sleep, or of an unborn infant, morally more excusable, nor did I imply any such thing.

    In reference to my remarks on the Iraq war you respond, “You obviously see this as a right wing construct where unilateral bombs are dropped by zealots you disagree with, but let me be the first to tell you little guy, it’s a lot more complicated than that, and difficult to prevent.”

    Once again, thanks for the insight into how you see things. It would have been very easy to prevent the Iraq war, had the Bush administration’s policies been grounded in objective, knowable facts and had not the principal actors been intent on a predetermined course that had little to do with objective realities.

    A great many other people evidently felt this way as well, and wanted to avert the loss of life that would be sure to result, for the Bush administration’s arguments for the war gave rise to the largest anti-war demonstrations in all of history prior to that time. The only thing that made it “difficult to prevent” was the stubornness of Mr. Bush and his neoconservative advisors.

      1. dennis

        Count, why was Amazona off on a rant about gender equality, slavery and people who “passionately promote the slaughter of millions”? I responded to that, and near the end made a passing reference to the war. Cluster took issue with that, and there you have it. That’s how digressions happen on blogs. It happens all the time here, on all sorts of topics.

      2. turnabout

        What I saw was a list of excuses people have made to abuse and kill other human beings including the excuses made to kill infants. I found it completely relevant. If you saw a “rant” and didn’t understand it that says alot about you and nothing about the post.

      3. Count d'Haricots

        dennis,
        @ least Ama was discussing abortion; a health care issue.

        If your desire is to promote abortion, please do so on the merits of abortion. Similar to the argument for legalizing drugs because “alcohol is worse”, the idea that those that disapprove of abortion should also disapprove of war, capital punishment, robbing liquor stores, or child pornography is simply a distraction. What does abortion add to society? What is the defense to the “murder of millions” question?

        If your desire is to oppose abortion, then I’m hard pressed to understand why you would pick a fight with others who want the same thing.

      4. Cluster

        Dennis,

        War is neither legal or illegal, war is either justified or not, and what you’re overlooking is that we were there to prevent the continuation of the slaughter. Saddam was systematically killing and terrorizing the citenzenry, but if it makes you feel better to blame America and/or continue to have a simplistic view of it then be my guest. War has nothing to do with abortion and your insistence on the comparison is weird. War is often times difficult to prevent unless you’re complete pacifist of which I am beginning to think you are, while an abortion is completely preventable and being pro life again doesn’t mean ALL life so this pious position of yours is still very juvenile and that ain’t no strawman.

      5. tiredoflibbs

        We have slammed denny’s “preemptive war” dumbed down talking point from the very beginning going all the way back to the original cease fire agreement signed by Hussein. AND all of the resolutions passed by the UN reaffirming those conditions on which hostilities can be restarted by any member nation if Hussein did not hold up his end of the agreement. Hussein did not.

        That is all denny thinks he has to hold over the conservatives. He loses the argument everytime and like wally thinks he has won on baseless repetitive BS.

        Pathetic.

      6. Amazona

        dennis, we may have to rename you “dense-is” if you are really so dense you did not see that my “rant”, as you so bitchily put it, was a reminder of other times societies have decided it would be in their own self interest to invent arbitrary criteria for qualifying for basic human rights.

        These criteria have included gender, race and religion.

        Now people like you have come up with age as a qualifier for the right to live.

        I think your efforts belong in the List of Shame and I feel confident that this is where they will be placed when history looks back at this era of murder for profit.

  4. dennis

    Amazona: “If killing babies concerns no one but the person who wants to kill the babies, then what about killing other people? If the only criteria are the age of the intended victim and the unfortunate accident of being conceived by a pathologically selfish female, who is to say that other criteria cannot be added later? Is it the concern of society to protect the lives of people who do not, yet, fit into these criteria? Why is discrimination like this OK?”

    Why indeed? Should we assume Amazona and her fellow conservatives want “society to protect the lives of people who do not, yet, fit into these criteria” or “other criteria” that may “be added later”? Sorry, I don’t believe that for a second.

    The U.S. has the best quality medical care in the world if you’re wealthy and have access to it. But if you’re poor and have no insurance (there’s your “other criteria”), you’re likely to die much earlier than those from a higher socioeconomic status, unless you’re blessed with great genes and the good fortune to dodge any kind of accident or medical emergency.

    Right about now is when the Ayn Rand objectivists will say, “Tough nuts – that’s their problem. It’s not the responsibility of the wealthy to care for the health of the poor.” You could hear all of that in the applause at the Sept. 12 GOP debate, when Ron Paul suggested that freedom was all about taking risks, even if it meant the poor would be left to die without medical help. A lot of regular Americans were appalled by that.

    To recap a point I was making earlier, if we draw a straight-line relationship between the economic values of conservatives who oppose Obama’s health care plan and the cold hard realities of life, death and medical care, we see that there aren’t very strong or authentic pro-life values among hard-core conservatives at all. It’s every man for himself, a Darwinian survival scheme to the very last breath.

    It’s passing strange that so many of these same people want to be identified as Christians and proudly call themselves “values” voters. Well, maybe not so many of Ron Paul’s people, but certainly those who support Santorum, who is equally committed to undoing Obama’s health plan.

    Will health care hurt Obama or help him by the time the election rolls around? I’m guessing that even with the individual mandate it will be seen as an honest attempt to help move us in the right direction. A lot of people I know don’t like the fact that among all nations the United States is number 37 in life expectancy. Imperfect as “Obamacare” may be, it’s a good faith attempt to change that number.

    1. Cluster

      The only true Christian is a democrat, right dennis? Seriously, you have the mind of a child dennis, and are so far removed from reality it’s frightening. Do you seriously think that all “hard core” conservatives just want a complete societal free-for-all? Do you honestly think that adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already heavily bureaucratized industry will change anything with the exception of increasing costs? Obamacare is a “good faith” effort? How?

      You have the same problem that all liberals do, and that is you are focused solely on rhetoric and intent, rather than what really matters and that is results. And the results of Obamacare, even in the early stages are not good, with the exception of all those entities that are receiving waivers. Tell us dennis, if Obamacare was such a “good faith” effort, why are so many waivers being issued?

      Unless and until you can more accurately grasp what conservativism actually is, and what most conservatives truly believe, I can only chalk up your posts to being dishonest and ill informed – at best.

      1. RetiredSpook

        Cluster,

        Looks like we’re channeling each other again this morning. Great minds think alike.

    2. RetiredSpook

      A lot of people I know don’t like the fact that among all nations the United States is number 37 in life expectancy. Imperfect as “Obamacare” may be, it’s a good faith attempt to change that number.

      Dennis, this statement represents what I dislike most about Leftists like you. You are either intellectually dishonest or lazy, I’m not sure which, but you tend to cite statistics to back up your POV that are dishonest.

      The World Health Organization’s World Health Report 2000, which ranked the health-care systems of nearly 200 nations, stands as one of the most influential social-science studies in history. For the past decade, it has been the de facto basis for much of the discussion of the health-care system in the United States, routinely cited in public discourse by members of government and policy experts. Its most notorious finding—that the United States ranked a disastrous 37th out of the world’s 191 nations in “overall performance”—provided supporters of President Barack Obama’s transformative health-care legislation with a data-driven argument for swift and drastic reform, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. spends more on health than any other nation.

      In October 2008, candidate Obama used the study to claim that “29 other countries have a higher life expectancy and 38 other nations have lower infant mortality rates.” On June 15, 2009, as he was beginning to make the case for his health-care bill, the new president said: “As I think many of you are aware, for all of this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured, the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do.” The perfect encapsulation of the study’s findings and assertions came in a September 9, 2009, editorial in Canada’s leading newspaper, the Globe and Mail: “With more than 40 million Americans lacking health insurance, another 25 million considered badly underinsured, and life expectancies and infant mortality rates significantly worse that those of most industrialized Western nations, the need for change seems obvious and pressing to some, especially when the United States is spending 16 percent of GDP on health care, roughly twice the average of other modern developed nations, all of which have some form of publicly funded system.”

      In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence—a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report’s true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal—socialized medicine—and then claim it was an objective measure of “quality.”

      WHO researchers divided aspects of health care into subjective categories and tailored the definitions to suit their political aims. They allowed fundamental flaws in methodology, large margins of error in data, and overt bias in data analysis, and then offered conclusions despite enormous gaps in the data they did have. The flaws in the report’s approach, flaws that thoroughly undermine the legitimacy of the WHO rankings, have been repeatedly exposed in peer-reviewed literature by academic experts who have examined the study in detail. Their analysis made clear that the study’s failings were plain from the outset and remain patently obvious today; but they went unnoticed, unmentioned, and unexamined by many because World Health Report 2000 was so politically useful. This object lesson in the ideological misuse of politicized statistics should serve as a cautionary tale for all policymakers and all lay people who are inclined to accept on faith the results reported in studies by prestigious international bodies.

      Before WHO released the study, it was commonly accepted that health care in countries with socialized medicine was problematic. But the study showed that countries with nationally centralized health-care systems were the world’s best. As Vincente Navarro noted in 2000 in the highly respected Lancet, countries like Spain and Italy “rarely were considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before” the WHO report. Polls had shown, in fact, that Italy’s citizens were more displeased with their health care than were citizens of any other major European country; the second worst was Spain. But in World Health Report 2000, Italy and Spain were ranked #2 and #7 in the global list of best overall providers.

      Read the whole thing — it’s very interesting.

      1. Amazona

        Spook, you’re not actually trying to insert FACTS into a beloved Lefty fantasy, are you?

        Not that it is likely to make any difference………

      2. J. R. Babcock

        As Vincente Navarro noted in 2000 in the highly respected Lancet, countries like Spain and Italy “rarely were considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before” the WHO report. Polls had shown, in fact, that Italy’s citizens were more displeased with their health care than were citizens of any other major European country; the second worst was Spain. But in World Health Report 2000, Italy and Spain were ranked #2 and #7 in the global list of best overall providers.

        This is the same mindset that thought that putting Iran and Libya on the U.N. Human rights commission gave it legitimacy.

    3. Amazona

      dennis, do try to rein in your galloping hysteria and stick to one topic for a few consecutive posts, OK? Yes, I understand how difficult it is to be in a discussion where you simply have no rational argument to support your emotion-based ‘position’—I see it all the time when we try to have fact based discussions with you guys and have to watch you flounder and flail and then try so desperately to shift the discourse to an area where you feel you might have more traction.

      But we are talking about one single thing here—the belief that the worth of a human life can reasonably depend on its age, and that life that does not fit into an arbitrarily designated age group can be eliminated at will. If you want to expand that admittedly narrow range of discussion, the only relevant expansion would be to bring in the belief that the right to life of these human beings who do not fit into the arbitrarily-chosen age range can also be determined by the people who will profit from their deaths—the females freed of basic human responsibility, and those who make money by killing the inconvenient young.

      You can frantically throw in as much chaff as you like, to try to shift the discussion to a more comfortable arena, including war, disease, miscarriage, Ron Paul, nationalized health care, Ayn Rand, genetics, etc etc etc but the fact is, you simply cannot defend an arbitrary age limit for the right to live.

      History is rife with examples of people inventing arbitrary criteria to try to justify actions such as murder and enslavement, and history has always shown the dishonesty of these efforts. Now you and people like you have invented another arbitrary criterion for the basic human right to live, that of age, and you don’t like having it pointed out to you or put into a historical context.

    4. tiredoflibbs

      Denny, again with the WHO propaganda and lies?. We have slammed this pathetic piece before.

      Yet, you keep posting the same crap over and over, just like wally?

      Is liberal stupidity contagious?

      Okay, like wally, scurry away only to repost this crap at a later time. But I have to hand it to you, unlike wally, at least you cite a “source” for your assertions.

      You don’t regurgitate dumbed down baseless talking points like wally does. Of course, it is easy to out perform wally in any discussion.

    5. tiredoflibbs

      denny:”Spook, I never cited anything from the World Health Organization.”

      Oh, the above video, that says “We’re number 37″, which is the ranking given to us by WHO and the reference to the WHO report in the video kind of threw me.

      I am sure it was just a simple oversight on your part.

      Yeah right. Again, liberals are caught and they resort to misleading and half-truths. At least, try to disguise your lies.

      1. dennis

        Tired, if you actually read what I said you’ll have your answer. I was citing life expectancy in my original posting, not WHO’s ranking of anything. Yes, I mistakenly used the number 37, the actual number is 50, worse than the WHO’s ranking of U.S. health care quality. And I provided a link to the CIA’s stats – if you want to call them lies, sure go ahead, whatever.

  5. Amazona

    Just an observation: Both James and this Carlton Pryor persona have refused to answer simple questions which were relevant to their own comments.

    Funny, isn’t it, how quickly these people scurry off when asked to explain their ‘positions’. Leads to the inevitable conclusion that the positions can’t be explained, much less defended, doesn’t it?

    Not that this will keep them from darting in to deposit even more irrational, insupportable, spite and malice. After all, this is what they do.

    I just enjoy pointing out that for many years now, the Leftist and Pseudo-Leftist blog vandals have proved that they simply cannot support or defend what they claim to believe. What’s really funny is that they don’t even try.

    This leaves us with the question: Is this because they are truly as ignorant as they appear to be, and simply do not KNOW anything about the system they support, or do they really understand it and therefore also understand it is indefensible?

  6. dennis

    Spook, I never cited anything from the World Health Organization. I was explicitly addressing life expectancy and I actually misstated the stat, having got that catchy youtube tune stuck in my head. The United States is number 50 in life expectancy, not number 37. We’re worse off than the World Health Organization says.

    My sources were the CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html and Population Health Metrics, a peer-reviewed journal. You evidently presumed the WHO was my source after seeing the graphic on the youtube song and I conflated the number.

    I didn’t post a link last night except for that youtube, which I should have put on a separate post so I could have included the source for my number. The CIA, above its table where the U.S. is listed as 50th in life expectancy, says: “Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.”

    This actually strengthens the point of the youtube song rather than weakening it, and begs the question of why such an advanced and wealthy nation as ours has such a poor showing in terms of the net result of our quality of medicine and health care.

    Amazona, the Count seemed to have a problem with my digression regarding abortion, which originally started with a response to you – so I reined it back to the thread topic. I notice that aside from spook challenging what he assumed incorrectly was my source, and your typical ad hominem argument, nobody really addressed the main point of my post, which was the GOP’s generally poor showing when it comes to authentic pro-life attitudes, as expressed in any policy other than abortion.

    Today you said: ” …the only relevant expansion would be to bring in the belief that the right to life of these human beings who do not fit into the arbitrarily-chosen age range can also be determined by the people who will profit from their deaths—the females freed of basic human responsibility, and those who make money by killing the inconvenient young.”

    Good lord, that’s a tortured sentence. But after breaking it down it seems to me your point is, who profits from the deaths of these human beings? I will expand your age group for the purpose of letting your general logic make my point, and venture an answer. According to the applause in the audience at the GOP/Tea Party debate I referenced earlier, it seems the people who don’t want their tax money used for health care of other people in any way shape or form, are the ones who stand to profit from letting uninsured poor people die. And I use the word “profit” loosely as you did, because there’s really no profit in a mother aborting her baby or in letting the uninsured die – only the avoidance of unwanted expense.

    Then you said “you have invented another arbitrary criterion for the basic human right to live, that of age.”

    Huh?? When and where have I ever done that? Speaking of chaff and hysteria, you’re fabricating things from thin air to attribute to people on the basis of some cartoon that only exists inside your head.

    1. Amazona

      ” Then you said “you have invented another arbitrary criterion for the basic human right to live, that of age.”

      Huh?? When and where have I ever done that? ”

      When you support abortion at a stage you find acceptable.

      There is no profit to a female released from any type or degree of responsibility for the human life created through her choices and actions? Really?

      Or are you going to fall back on the semantics game of the Left and rely on your own definition of a term—in this case, of “profit”. Even then you would lose.

      And a discussion on abortion has nothing to do with the straw man of “letting the uninsured die”.

      1. dennis

        I’ve never supported abortion. Ever in my life. I have supported the government staying the hell out of people’s private lives, and I always will. That’s a time-honored conservative doctrine.

        You didn’t address the underlying point of my post, which is the GOP’s poor showing when it comes to valuing and protecting human life, as expressed in any policy other than abortion. That was the point of me dragging the war into a larger conversation about health care.

        Nor have you answered a question I’ve posed repeatedly here: how does a small-government conservative defend the concept of making every fertilized egg into a legal person under the Constitution? Because that’s where this issue logically ends up. Mississippians had the sense to vote that amendment down – this time. You think Obamacare is a nightmare – would you really want to turn every miscarriage into a potential criminal case, and every woman with a failed pregnancy into a suspect? Just asking, not asserting, please note.

        I will never accept the notion that opposing government intrusion into what a woman does inside her uterus constitutes “support” for abortion, any more than my belief in free speech constitutes “enthusiasm” for profanity. That’s the kind of linkage you and others make here constantly – it reflects poorly on your capacity for logical thinking. With freedom comes moral accountability – and some kinds of moral accountability are to God, not to society or any governmental authority.

      2. Amazona

        Hey, a woman can host a canasta tournament in her uterus, as far as I am concerned, as long as no human life is ended as a result.

        I am always amazed that you people think abortion is only about the female demanding that the life of her child be ended. There is one person involved until that person becomes pregnant. Then there are two. (At least.) An abortion ends the new life. It’s that simple. The location of the child doesn’t matter. The age of the child doesn’t matter

        how does a small-government conservative defend the concept of making every fertilized egg into a legal person under the Constitution? This is undoubtedly one of the stupidest efforts to argue for the murder of unborn children.

        Gee, how does a small-government anything defend the concept of considering anyone a “legal person”? A “small-government conservative” believes that the United States Constitution is the law of the land, and cannot find a caveat in that document which qualifies the innate right to life according to age or even location.
        What makes you a more “legal person” than a human being, already complete with all the human DNA it will ever have, that just happens to have been in existence for some period of time you have arbitrarily decided is inadequate? YOU are the one trying to pick and choose who has the right to live.

        The astounding range of ignorance and stupidity in your post would take pages to address, being based on such a collection of twisted “logic” and false assumptions that a rebuttal would have to include things like political definitions, legal terminology, etc.

        Like this: “would you really want to turn every miscarriage into a potential criminal case, and every woman with a failed pregnancy into a suspect? “ Anyone so inherently dishonest (or stupid) that he insists on trying to conflate an involuntary medical condition with the intentional taking of a human life is incapable of rational thought.

      3. Amazona

        dennis lecturing anyone on “..a time-honored conservative doctrine…” is pretty funny, given his total ignorance about the meaning of 21st Century American Conservatism.

        But if the “right” to end another human life is supposed to be just a matter of a private decision in a private life, why stop with tiny helpless children?

  7. Count d'Haricots

    Major random placement of comments; Let me try again;

    Swifty,
    We don’t quote dictionary definitions here, otherwise you’re stuck with:

    Liberal – Morally unrestrained; licentious~ Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.

    Now, if you want to describe us in political terms, we’re listening.

  8. neocon1

    jamesAkbar

    Reelection here we come!
    hope you take the same glee with our destruction if the POS is cheated in again.
    Oh wait it what you iranians really want….silly me.

  9. neocon1

    WOOF

    A federal judge in Montana is facing tough scrutiny this week after he forwarded an email containing a joke about Barack Obama’s mother possibly having sex with a dog.

    she was a GOOD donkrat why not?
    at least the puppy would have been born in Hawaii not Kenya.

  10. neocon1

    jamesAkbar

    ps. how did Obama get cheated in the first time around?

    ACORN, cigarettes, booze and useful idiots who do not have to show ID to vote six times….

  11. neocon1

    Ubombas mama?

    Bestiality Advocate in Canada Charged With…Well, You Guessed It

    Brian Cutteridge, 38, has made his thoughts on bestiality well known. He’s a fan of it, to say the least. And now he’s set to go on trial in Canada for practicing it.

    The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says it obtained video of Cutteridge engaging in sex acts with his dog. That video has now led to charges.

  12. neocon1

    Hmmmmmm

    Holder Defends Suing States Over Voter ID Laws Because They Hurt ‘Minorities, Young People, Seniors’

    “…the negative impact of these photo ID laws and the harm that has on minorities, young people, seniors…”

    Riiiiiiight !!! pee wee

Comments are closed.